t2000_balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, but the description explains what the tool returns (available USD across allowlist, gas reserve) and its non-destructive nature ('get'). It does not disclose any edge cases like zero balance or error handling, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second adds important context. No filler, front-loaded with the main purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description covers the balance composition and scope. It could mention the output format (e.g., numeric string with decimals), but the provided info is adequate for basic use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter description is needed. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the agent's wallet balance, specifies the supported assets (USDC, USDsui, SUI plus gas reserve), and distinguishes it from savings/lending tools by directing to audric.ai. This differentiates it from siblings like t2000_send or t2000_swap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context that the v4 wallet is payments-only and advises using audric.ai for savings/lending APYs. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool within the tool set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.